Nagamohan Das, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.12.2007 in C.C. No. 584/2007 passed by JMFC IV Court at Belgaum insofar as it relates to not initiating proceedings or action against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and not awarding any compensation, for a writ of mandamus to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- and more to each of the petitioners for violation of their fundamental rights.

2. On 26.10.2006 the driver of the bus bearing No. KA-22-F-909 by name Suresh Antakannavar lodged a complaint with respondent No. 6 police against the petitioners and the same came to be registered in crime No. 62/2006 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 307, 353, 427, 109 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners/accused caused damage to the bus by throwing stones, injury to a passenger and assaulted the driver. On the same day respondent No. 6 police arrested the petitioners and produced them before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 27.10.2006 at 12.30 AM with remand application. Accordingly the jurisdictional Magistrate remanded the petitioners to judicial custody and directed respondent No. 6 police to give explanation for the delay in producing the accused before the Court. Again on 24.11.2006 the petitioners were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate with handcuff with remand application. The jurisdictional Magistrate extended the judicial custody up to 07.12.2006 and directed the Investigation Officer to submit explanation with regard to handcuffing of the petitioners. Respondent No. 7 submitted explanation on 13.10.2007 as per Annexure E inter alia contending that the petitioners tried to escape and therefore they were handcuffed. It is further stated that before producing the petitioners before the Court, when respondent No. 7 tried to remove the handcuffs, petitioners suddenly entered the Court hall and there was no intentional lapse on their part. To this explanation petitioners filed their objections denying the explanation given by respondent No. 7. After hearing both the parties the jurisdictional Magistrate passed the impugned order on 28.12.2007 holding that "it is established by the admission of escort party that the accused were brought to the Court with handcuffs from the Central Prison. Therefore the fact that the accused were brought from the Jail to the Court in handcuff is amply proved". The jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioners for payment of compensation, holding an enquiry and reserved liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy before the appropriate forum. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo dated 19.09.2013 reporting the death of petitioner No. 2. No steps are taken and as such the petition is abated insofar as petitioner No. 2 is concerned.

4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

5. It is necessary at this stage to notice the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Citizen for Democracy through its President Vs. State of Assam and others, AIR 1996 SC 2193 where in the Court gave the following directions in the matter of handcuffing of the accused:

"16. We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or under-trial - while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. The police and the jail authorities, on their own, shall have no authority to direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back.

17. Where the police or the jail authorities have well grou